Read what Jimmie said and you'll get it. When in doubt, go with Jimmie, one of the most sensible posters on the site in any discussion. There's no reason to side against pooka's argument just because he's, well ... pooka.

Im not siding against pooka or trying to discredit him in any way. Im just not sure as to where he stands.

is this accurate:

We are all in agreement that Bargnani should not be a part of this team.
Pooka is saying, I agree that he should not be a part of this team, but the reason some postes have on why he should not be on this team, is not accurate

Im not siding against pooka or trying to discredit him in any way. Im just not sure as to where he stands.

is this accurate:

We are all in agreement that Bargnani should not be a part of this team.
Pooka is saying, I agree that he should not be a part of this team, but the reason some postes have on why he should not be on this team, is not accurate

correct?

sort of... not really..

he's saying some of the statistics that are being brought up are horse shit... not they exist, or aren't real... he's questioning the validity of cherry picking advanced stats in order to discredit bargs...

kind of like... say you break up with a chick.... and your buddy asks you why you broke up with her... and you tell your buddy "oh it was her nose... i didn't like the way her nostrils were slightly upturned... and her nipples were strange... they were like innie nipples... and kinda peperroni like... not the big chicago pepperoni... the small tiny pepperonies you can buy in bulk at no frills... and her eyes were slightly uneven... and she has construction worker fingers"

he arguing against the nit picking... and basically advocating saying straight up "i broke up with her cuz she ugly"

he's saying some of the statistics that are being brought up are horse shit... not they exist, or aren't real... he's questioning the validity of cherry picking advanced stats in order to discredit bargs...

kind of like... say you break up with a chick.... and your buddy asks you why you broke up with her... and you tell your buddy "oh it was her nose... i didn't like the way her nostrils were slightly upturned... and her nipples were strange... they were like innie nipples... and kinda peperroni like... not the big chicago pepperoni... the small tiny pepperonies you can buy in bulk at no frills... and her eyes were slightly uneven... and she has construction worker fingers"

he arguing against the nit picking... and basically advocating saying straight up "i broke up with her cuz she ugly"

Pooka didn't agree with one of your subarguments. That doesn't mean he has to provide arguments in favour of the complete opposite view, which somehow, quite weirdly, you appear to want him to do. I didn't see any theoretical jibberish as well; the only problem with his argument I see (in this debate) is the confrontational (frontpage comment section) attitude he brings to the debate.

Challenging a subargument isn't going off topic as well. That the thread isn't going anywhere anymore is, as with most debates on a forum, simply because no side is going to acknowledge being wrong or even acknowledge the point being made is not an unreasonable one.

p00ka's posts have left me confused as to WTF he is actually talking about. Maybe he can provide me with the correct reasons why Toronto is worse with Bargnani? If it is not based on wins and losses with him playing/not and with him coming off the bench/not, then what is it?

I have admitted being in the wrong on numerous occasions. Clearly in this case, and many others, I'm just not all that smrt.

The reality is:
- the Raptors are, well now, 5-25 with Bargnani as a starter,
- they are 0-9 when he scores 20 or more,
- I've yet to come across a stat for this season that shows he helps Toronto in any way,
- numerous stats show the Raptors are worse with Bargnani on the floor.

From this I conclude the Raptors are better off without Bargnani this season and the better he does individually in the one thing he is suppose to be good at, the worse the outcome for the team. That is what I have been talking about.

I acknowledge there are are all sorts of reasons one could offer as to why the record is what it is with Bargnani (other teams best player ate bad sushi before the game, starting PG off opponent missed his nap, team didn't do the correct sequence in the warm up, the bus hit 4 red lights from the hotel to arena versus 2, Devlin only blamed the refs 87 times instead of the usual 93, someone flushed an arena toilet as Bargnani's ball was in mid air creating a butterfly effect causing the shot to miss and his confidence to take another plummet). But I always thought sport glory and criticism was outcome/production based: wins-losses/statistics. This subargument is bullshit in my opinion and splitting hairs for no other reason other than to be a dick. If the 'facts' I have provided are not suitable as to why Toronto is better WITHOUT Bargnani this season, and if p00ka or jimmie feel the same way, please show me how I could show this statement to be true so in the future I can be sure to state it properly. If wins and losses don't matter, lets give everyone a championship every year. If statistics don't matter, lets end the debate of best ever to play now and give the award to Popeye Jones because, well, I loved him when he played. MJ? Wilt? LeBron? Russell? Nah man. Fuck that shit man. Wins/losses/championships don't mean diddly squat. The debate of greatest coach ever? PJax? Red? Nah fuck that shit man. Number of championships or wins means nothing. Darrell Walker is the newly anointed great coach of all time. Why? Well look at the talent he had to work with... and they played in Canada.... and they played in the SkyDome. At some point some interpretation has to come in to what the numbers show. If you don't come to the conclusion the Raptors are a better team without Bargnani based on 5-25 as a starter and 0-9 when he score 20s or more (all of which happen to be games he started), then I don't know what to say and am going to clean up the drywall next to my desk that has accumulated from banging my head off it.

p00ka's posts have left me confused as to WTF he is actually talking about. Maybe he can provide me with the correct reasons why Toronto is worse with Bargnani? If it is not based on wins and losses with him playing/not and with him coming off the bench/not, then what is it?

I have admitted being in the wrong on numerous occasions. Clearly in this case, and many others, I'm just not all that smrt.

The reality is:
- the Raptors are, well now, 5-25 with Bargnani as a starter,
- they are 0-9 when he scores 20 or more,
- I've yet to come across a stat for this season that shows he helps Toronto in any way,
- numerous stats show the Raptors are worse with Bargnani on the floor.

From this I conclude the Raptors are better off without Bargnani this season and the better he does individually in the one thing he is suppose to be good at, the worse the outcome for the team. That is what I have been talking about.

I acknowledge there are are all sorts of reasons one could offer as to why the record is what it is with Bargnani (other teams best player ate bad sushi before the game, starting PG off opponent missed his nap, team didn't do the correct sequence in the warm up, the bus hit 4 red lights from the hotel to arena versus 2, Devlin only blamed the refs 87 times instead of the usual 93, someone flushed an arena toilet as Bargnani's ball was in mid air creating a butterfly effect causing the shot to miss and his confidence to take another plummet). But I always thought sport glory and criticism was outcome/production based: wins-losses/statistics. This subargument is bullshit in my opinion and splitting hairs for no other reason other than to be a dick. If the 'facts' I have provided are not suitable as to why Toronto is better WITHOUT Bargnani this season, and if p00ka or jimmie feel the same way, please show me how I could show this statement to be true so in the future I can be sure to state it properly. If wins and losses don't matter, lets give everyone a championship every year. If statistics don't matter, lets end the debate of best ever to play now and give the award to Popeye Jones because, well, I loved him when he played. MJ? Wilt? LeBron? Russell? Nah man. Fuck that shit man. Wins/losses/championships don't mean diddly squat. The debate of greatest coach ever? PJax? Red? Nah fuck that shit man. Number of championships or wins means nothing. Darrell Walker is the newly anointed great coach of all time. Why? Well look at the talent he had to work with... and they played in Canada.... and they played in the SkyDome. At some point some interpretation has to come in to what the numbers show. If you don't come to the conclusion the Raptors are a better team without Bargnani based on 5-25 as a starter and 0-9 when he score 20s or more (all of which happen to be games he started), then I don't know what to say and am going to clean up the drywall next to my desk that has accumulated from banging my head off it.

Even when he has a good game, this team is not able to get over the hump i.e. Win a game. I'm with you Matt, we aren't winning with him as a Raptor. He can have 20 points, 10 rebounds, but if we don't win, it doesn't matter. Now, we aren't saying he IS the reason for un-success, but he sure as hell has an impact - a negative one, regardless if he's playing well. It just doesn't work here.

I know I'm being redundant in my post, but just trying to emphasis, we aren't getting anywhere with him as a Raptor, neither will he get anywhere as a Raptor.

Let's not kid ourselves here. It makes very little sense why someone would go through such lengths to discredit the methodologies of arriving at the conclusion that Bargnani sucks, unless they were trying to defend Bargnani, even on a subconscious level.

As the great Judge Judy often says, "if it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true".

Let's not kid ourselves here. It makes very little sense why someone would go through such lengths to discredit the methodologies of arriving at the conclusion that Bargnani sucks, unless they were trying to defend Bargnani, even on a subconscious level.

As the great Judge Judy often says, "if it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true".

p00ka is a Bargnani fan (whether he wants to admit it or not).

I don't agree at all. Maybe pooka is a Bargnani fan, but that shouldn't matter a lot. I think it makes sense. During the years I've been annoyed at all the things said about Bargnani without proper evidence, these things freak me out (this discussion is not one of them btw, as it's a very small thing). It's been the reason for my name and my rant in my first post ever on here. This made me even a little bit pro Bargnani while there is barely any reason to be.

I hate discussions where lots (most) of people are in agreement with one side of the argument and consequently good reasoning is no longer needed. I'm all for fair criticism, but reasoning which (in my opinion) just uses wrong arguments to reiterate some broadly accepted opinion doesn't do it for me.

I don't agree at all. Maybe pooka is a Bargnani fan, but that shouldn't matter a lot. I think it makes sense. During the years I've been annoyed at all the things said about Bargnani without proper evidence, these things freak me out (this discussion is not one of them btw, as it's a very small thing). It's been the reason for my name and my rant in my first post ever on here. This made me even a little bit pro Bargnani while there is barely any reason to be.

I hate discussions where lots (most) of people are in agreement with one side of the argument and consequently good reasoning is no longer needed. I'm all for fair criticism, but reasoning which (in my opinion) just uses wrong arguments to reiterate some broadly accepted opinion doesn't do it for me.

Fair enough.

But just curious as to why you (or p00ka) don't come to the defense of Gay, Lowry, or DeRozan (for example) when similar stats are used to draw erroneous conclusions...

I understand that Bargnani gets picked on more than others, but that isn't a coincidence.

Edit: We're all fans here, so it makes perfect sense for emotions to get involved. Just don't pretend you're an impartial mediator, that's all. In other words, there's nothing wrong with being a Bargnani fan. Just admit it. [Not necessarily meant to be towards you, Soft Euro]

But just curious as to why you (or p00ka) don't come to the defense of Gay, Lowry, or DeRozan (for example) when similar stats are used to draw erroneous conclusions...

I understand that Bargnani gets picked on more than others, but that isn't a coincidence.

First of all, I don't come to the defense of Bargnani very often; I don't know how often I've done it, but probably not more than once every two months. I would come to the defense of the others as well, I must say, I can't remember I've ever done this, but I also can't remember it was ever needed (with plenty of others who will around). The opinions there have been much more evenly divided which also means people don't throw out weird arguments out there as easily as it won't be accepted by the 'community' and if they do, they'll get plenty of scorn. With Bargani, he's the underdog now, and sometimes he's getting gangraped.

Well, of all things, Bargnani isn't responsible for his number one selection, his contract and his playing time. If those things had been different, he wouldn't be a target right now (and maybe not even in the league anymore).

My guess is it's because pooka thinks math and facts actually matter, even when what you are presenting is just an "opinion". You can argue that Bargnani sucks for a ton of reasons, but when you bring "facts" and stats into your argument, they really should actually, you know, mean something. And the ones being presented don't actually mean anything because you can't prove causality or correlation between Bargnani's individual stats and those of the team as a whole. Mathematically speaking, I mean.

If you're just trying to add to a narrative, it's fine, but there's no actual value to using those stats the way people are using them here. They are completely meaningless as related to the argument at hand.

Fine, but again -- why bother? Who cares if people are arguing with inappropriate stats -- fact remains that Bargnani is terrible. He's not a man who deserves defense from any of us who care about this team. Here, I'll quote some research I did in the Boo Bargnani thread:

Since 1946, there have been a total of 109 players who were 6'11 or taller and averaged 20 or more minutes per game over the span of their careers.

Amongst those, guess where Bargnani ranks:

In rebounds per game? #100
In player efficiency? #80
In field goal percentage? #96
In blocks per game? #82
In Defensive rating? #109

Fine, but again -- why bother? Who cares if people are arguing with inappropriate stats -- fact remains that Bargnani is terrible. He's not a man who deserves defense from any of us who care about this team. Here, I'll quote some research I did in the Boo Bargnani thread:

Wow.. there were 9 worse rebounders then Bargnani? That I find shocking!

Hmm. I just ran it again and it seems it's changed.. I must've done something in the filter. But anyway, here's the rehash:

On a search for all players 6'11+ with 22+ mpg averaged over their careers. Totals are different because some stats didn't exist until certain times, or if they don't have the stat the player doesn't show up on the ranking:

In rebounds per game? #106 (out of 108)
In player efficiency? #82 (out of 109)
In field goal percentage? #101 (out of 108)
In blocks per game? #70 (out of 103)
In Defensive rating? #103 (out of 103)

Why defend a guy like this? Apparently this thread is about giving this guy more minutes.